Yes.
It is rational. An irrational number is a number that you cannot define by a fraction or a decimal. Since you wrote it as a decimal, it is rational.
.1111 is rational. Rational numbers are numbers that can be written as a fraction. Irrational numbers cannot be expressed as a fraction.
It is rational. An irrational number is a number that you cannot define by a fraction or a decimal. Since you wrote it as a decimal, it is rational.
no: the decimal is not repeating or terminating and therefore cannot be written as a fraction, which is one of the two requirements to be a rational number.
An irrational number cannot be written as a fraction or to an exact decimal such as the symbol for pi or the square root of two. A rational number can be written in the form of a fraction or a decimal to an exact value.
The answer is not a rational number and therefore cannot be written out in full in decimal (or fractional) notation. It is approx 5.196152.
Any number which can be written exactly with a limited set of figures is "rational". Numbers which cannot be written with a limited set, because the decimal number goes on for ever is "irrational". So 1.4 is rational because it takes only 2 figures to write its value exactly.
A number can end or repeat but it cannot end andrepeat (other than repeat 000... or 999... ).A number that can be written as a terminating or repeating decimal is a rational number.
In most cases, you cannot.
It is a rational number.
You cannot. There is no way to determine if the number has or has not been rounded and so no way to determine if the number is a terminating, repeating or other form of decimal number. Without that information you cannot tell if it is rational.
There are infinitely many rational numbers and, in decimal form, most of them have infinitely many digits. So there cannot be a longest rational number.